Is Nichols Vs Brown now a viable option?

[KC_to_CA]

Pro-CCW Sheriff

Any chance we get a pro-CCW sheriff in SD, Yulo and other restrictive counties?

My reading is that we would loose "bear" outside the home.

In Peruta, no constitutional right to CCW per 9th.

In Nichols, I have a feeling the ruling would be three fold: (1) no go in public places due to government safety interest, (2) no go on non-public land because per Heller "some" gun restriction is allowed hence CA law stands, and (3) open carry is not specifically addressed in Heller. The 9th would then argue that "bear" is not testricted since one can ask permit if with good cause.

Only chance is a pro-CCW (not just pro-2A) sheriff.

[KC_to_CA]

A ruling in favor of Nichols would not necessarily be a ruling in our favor anyways.

A ruling in favor of Nichols sets the stage for a state-level ban on CCW... Hawaii/Illinois style.

Legal OC would not address the issue of GFSZ, would not address the issue of unloaded carry... and most importantly, would strip the "concealed means concealed" issue when entering a business with a "no guns" sign... and thousands of those signs would appear within weeks.

Surely if a gay couple can sue a baker for not baking a cake, a gun owner can sue a business with no gun sign. Merit or no merit.

This is Kalifornia afterall, the lawsuit capital of the world for every perceived rights violation.

[CCWFacts]

Charles Nichols has a good chance of winning, in my opinion, and gun orgs were foolish not to support his case.

You could put me in the best Formula 1 car ever created, and I would still lose a Formula 1 race, because I'm not a trained and experienced Formula 1 driver (I've never even sat in one). It doesn't matter how great Nichols' case is, he is not an attorney and he's going to lose, the same way I would lose no matter how wonderful my Formula 1 car is, because I'm not a Formula 1 driver.

He is up against the smartest and most competent people the state can find, who have all the resources to do research, to triple-check every filing, and who come with the built-in deference and presumptions that the entire system has in favor of the state. I presume he's not even doing this case full time, and he's up against all the full-time resources the state wants to use.

Even worse, Nichols suffers from willful ignorance. Bottom line, he's a smart guy, he can read the 2A just as clearly as any of us, he knows that he's right, and so that's all he needs to win. But courts don't work that way, not at all. Nichols suffers from a Stage 4 Dunning-Kruger effect. If you consider the four stages of competence, he's at stage 1, unconscious incompetence. Or more likely he's at stage zero, which is intentionally incompetent, meaning he avoids interacting with anyone who actually is competent.

I know 100% I'm not an attorney. I personally won't even attempt to defend myself on an ordinary traffic ticket. I haven't gotten many of them but when I do, I hire someone. And I'm a smart guy who likes to learn about the law, but I won't handle my own traffic tickets. And here's someone who is playing with all of our rights, for the benefit of his own ego, in front of the 9th circuit.

I had previously restrained myself from making this post because, why attack someone personally, but my level of disgust at what he's doing overrode my self-restraint against lashon harah in this case.

[chris]

The fact that they're the 9th circuit, they took an en banc of the amazing written Peruta and played judicial games in deciding that Peruta didn't insist on the entire regulatory scheme ENOUGH is the proof you should need.

and when those idiots on the 9th rule against him. we will have no right to own a firearm next. Heller meh they don't pay attention to that let alone McDonald as well.

[kcbrown]

and when those idiots on the 9th rule against him. we will have no right to own a firearm next. Heller meh they don't pay attention to that let alone McDonald as well.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Competence is irrelevant at the 9th Circuit. They will rule against you if that's what they want to do, and it doesn't matter how good you are.

How do we know this? Because that's exactly what they did to the very people that many here claim are the best at this.

[Snoop Doggy Dawg]

Nichols loses because, unlike Peruta, he actually limited his claims to open carry. More likely, we get the en Banc decision reviewed by entire on 9th circuit. Order issued today for the state to respond to petition for review.

[Paladin]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 24, 2016 – Because of the delay tactics of the NRA, CRPA, SAF, CalGuns.nuts in filing petitions for a full court rehearing of the limited en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto, I contacted the state’s attorney informing him that I would be filing a motion to stay the following of my opening brief until the mandate in Peruta/Richards is issued at which point my Opening brief would be due 45 days later followed by a normal briefing schedule. The state’s attorney agreed. Unless some miracle happens and a stake is finally driven into the black hearts of these two concealed carry lawsuits before the current stay expires then I will be filing the additional motion to stay my case as I just described.

from:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=739

[chris]

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Competence is irrelevant at the 9th Circuit. They will rule against you if that's what they want to do, and it doesn't matter how good you are.

How do we know this? Because that's exactly what they did to the very people that many here claim are the best at this.

oh you mean on how the 9th completely misread the Peruta case and made it about a right to concealed carry when it wasn't?

or maybe on how the 9th granted en banc to AG Harris even when the state wasn't part of it? and how Sheriff Gore didn't want to appeal it?

yeah no I'm not paying attention.

the 9th in general is full of activists judges who routinely are overturned more than any other court in the US. yeah I'm not paying attention.

I don't get into the weeds about every single case why it takes too much of my time.

IMO I knew the 9th would rule against Peruta. the same with Nichols. how about you re-read my post and try to understand what I meant.

[kcbrown]

oh you mean on how the 9th completely misread the Peruta case and made it about a right to concealed carry when it wasn't?



or maybe on how the 9th granted en banc to AG Harris even when the state wasn't part of it? and how Sheriff Gore didn't want to appeal it?



yeah no I'm not paying attention.



the 9th in general is full of activists judges who routinely are overturned more than any other court in the US. yeah I'm not paying attention.



I don't get into the weeds about every single case why it takes too much of my time.



IMO I knew the 9th would rule against Peruta. the same with Nichols. how about you re-read my post and try to understand what I meant.

Sorry. I thought you were commenting as you did in order to say that someone other than Nichols should be bringing the open carry challenge, and that they would somehow fare better. But your message above clarifies things. Looks like we're on the same page here.


(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[chris]

Sorry. I thought you were commenting as you did in order to say that someone other than Nichols should be bringing the open carry challenge, and that they would somehow fare better. But your message above clarifies things. Looks like we're on the same page here.


(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

my response is that this state routinely ignore SCOTUS rulings such as Heller and McDonald.

yes we are on the same page but I'm probably not into the details about all of the cases.